Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in sedated endoscopy for high-risk obstructive sleep apnea patients: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxemia is the most common adverse event during sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients with high obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) risk (STOP-Bang &#x2265;5) are susceptible due to sedation-induced loss of upper airway tone exacerbating airway collapsibility. Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) benefits general at-risk populations, its efficacy in this specific cohort remains uncertain, as its mild positive pressure falls far below therapeutic continuous positive airway pressure levels for moderate-to-severe OSA, questioning its ability to stent the collapsible airway. Our prior proof-of-concept study in this cohort observed a 5% incidence of hypoxemia with HFNC, confirming feasibility and safety and justifying this confirmatory trial. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled single-blind trial will enroll 600 adults (STOP-Bang score &#x2265;5) undergoing elective sedated gastroenteroscopy across three centers. Participants will be 1:1 randomized (stratified by center) to HFNC (30&#x2009;L/min pre-oxygenation, 60&#x2009;L/min post-induction) or conventional nasal cannula (6&#x2009;L/min). Both groups receive standardized propofol-alfentanil sedation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with at least one episode of hypoxemia (SpO2 75%-90% <60&#x2009;s). Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with at least one episode of severe hypoxemia (SpO2 <75% or 75%&#x2264;SpO2<90% &#x2265;60&#x2009;s), the proportion with subclinical respiratory depression (90%&#x2264;SpO2<95%), and the frequency of other adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on HFNC's efficacy in high-risk OSA patients, addressing whether it can overcome pressure limitations to prevent hypoxemia. Results are expected to inform sedation management guidelines, establish a new standard of care for this subgroup, and enhance procedural safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 December 2025 (NCT07307560).

Humans

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of &#x2265;3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 3.25 &#xb1; 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3&#x223c;6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1&#x223c;3.75] vs. 4.15 &#xb1; 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 &#xb1; 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4&#x223c;5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 &#xb1; 13.32 vs. 144.11 &#xb1; 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 &#xb1; 10.28 vs. 82.37 &#xb1; 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50&#x223c;79.25] vs. 85.00 &#xb1; 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans

Choice of Anesthesia in Microelectrode Recording-guided Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Parkinson's Disease (CHAMPION): A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease is often performed under conscious sedation or general anesthesia. However, anesthetic agents may influence intraoperative microelectrode recording, and the optimal anesthesia method for microelectrode recording remains unclear. This study compared general anesthesia and conscious sedation in preserving microelectrode recording signal intensity during deep brain stimulation. METHODS: In this prospective, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, patients with Parkinson's disease (United Kingdom Brain Bank criteria) undergoing elective bilateral surgery were randomized 1:1 to the conscious sedation or the general anesthesia group. During surgery, a desflurane anesthetic titrated against the quality of the electrophysiologic signal was applied in the general anesthesia group, whereas patients in the conscious sedation group received dexmedetomidine anesthesia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high-quality microelectrode recording (normalized root mean square greater than 2.0), assessed postoperatively off-line. Secondary outcomes included operation and recording duration, 6-month clinical efficacy, and complication rates. RESULTS: Of 188 randomized patients (94 general anesthesia, 93 conscious sedation), desflurane anesthesia was noninferior for high normalized root mean square proportion (89.4% vs . 90.3%; difference, -0.96%; 95% CI, -9.62 to 7.70). The general anesthesia group had shorter operative time (difference, -9.07&#x2009;min; 95% CI, -13.99 to -4.14; P < 0.001). At 6 months, changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (difference, -2.50; 95% CI, -7.20 to 2.20; P = 0.297), levodopa equivalent daily dose (difference, -58.4&#x2009;mg; 95% CI, -133.56 to 16.75; P = 0.128), and complication rates (general anesthesia: 10.9% vs . conscious sedation: 8.9%; P = 0.655) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia is noninferior to conscious sedation for microelectrode-guided subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation, providing equivalent signal intensity and clinical outcomes while improving procedural efficiency, supporting its use as a valid clinical option.

Humans

Ketamine Plus Midazolam versus Fentanyl Plus Midazolam for Sedation and Analgesia during Image-guided Procedures in Interventional Radiology: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background Opioid-benzodiazepine regimens remain common for radiologist-administered procedural sedation despite respiratory and analgesic effectiveness concerns. Purpose To compare intraprocedural pain and patient-reported experience between ketamine/midazolam and fentanyl/midazolam during image-guided procedural sedation. Materials and Methods This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single academic center between June 2025 and February 2026. Adults undergoing image-guided lung or bone biopsy or abscess drainage were randomized to fentanyl/midazolam or ketamine/midazolam administered by interventional radiologists. Procedures were performed using US, CT, CT fluoroscopy, or combined CT and US guidance. The primary outcome was maximum intraprocedural pain (0-10 on the Numeric Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, physiologic parameters, oxygen desaturation, patient-reported experience assessed using a modified Heidelberg questionnaire, and complications. Results Among 264 randomized procedures (132 procedures per group) in 260 participants (median age, 68 years [IQR, 61-75 years]; 135 [52%] female), ketamine/midazolam resulted in lower maximum intraprocedural pain than fentanyl/midazolam (mean difference, -1.4 points [95% CI: -2.0, -0.8]; P < .001). Pain scores greater than 4 occurred less frequently with ketamine/midazolam (2.3% vs 17%; absolute difference, 14 percentage points [95% CI: 8, 21]; P < .001). Ketamine/midazolam was associated with higher nadir oxygen saturation (mean difference, +1.4% [95% CI: 0.6, 2.2]; P = .001) and fewer oxygen desaturation events below 90% (three [2.3%] vs 13 [9.8%]; absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points [95% CI: 1.9, 13.3]; P = .02). Ketamine/midazolam produced deeper sedation and higher intraprocedural systolic blood pressure. Hallucinations occurred more frequently with ketamine/midazolam (15 [11.4%] vs five [3.8%]; absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points [95% CI: 1.3, 13.9]; P = .03), though overall procedural comfort, reduced recall, and perceived adequacy of sedation were improved. Procedure-related and sedation-related complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion Radiologist-administered ketamine/midazolam during image-guided procedural sedation improved analgesia and patient-reported experience with fewer hypoxemic events and no increase in complications compared with fentanyl/midazolam. Clinical trial registration no. NCT07040163

Aged